I am starting this new post so that we can discuss how Christians understand the Bible to differentiate in a rational way why there is a difference between the sin of murder and God's command to the Israelites to annihilate certain Canaanite tribes.

Other forum members, I know this has been discussed previously in the forum, likely several times, so forgive me if this is a redundant topic, but MadBunny said he would like to discuss it with me.

MadBunny, first tell me where you see the Bible says murder is a sin and we'll go from there.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Sin, as we have previously discussed is anything that runs counter to the will or commandment of god. (per bible)In your case, you've also stated that you feel sin is when a person thinks they are going against the will of god. (per personal definition)

Truly murder is pretty popular in the bible, other than the basic commandments or the various Jesus statement about loving everybody it's pretty full of instructions on how, who and when to kill the heck outta people.

Seems to me that NOT killing people is the bigger crime, taking the bible as a whole. The penalty for this, presumably is the same as all the other penalties.

Logged

Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Sin, as we have previously discussed is anything that runs counter to the will or commandment of god. (per bible)In your case, you've also stated that you feel sin is when a person thinks they are going against the will of god. (per personal definition)

Truly murder is pretty popular in the bible, other than the basic commandments or the various Jesus statement about loving everybody it's pretty full of instructions on how, who and when to kill the heck outta people.

Seems to me that NOT killing people is the bigger crime, taking the bible as a whole. The penalty for this, presumably is the same as all the other penalties.

Are you derailing the thread already? MB, what in the Bible are you asking me to compare? Give me the verses so we can continue.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Well thank you Skeptic 54768 for adding that insight. However, at no point have I talked about your god sinning against his own rules.I am questioning the nature of sin, in particular contradictory rules on the subject of sin. As a subset of the same conversation: whether all sin carries the same binary penalty. Is all sin the same, what's the penalty? Is telling a lie just as bad as getting a tattoo, just as bad as rejecting Jesus?

The standard penalty for sin is: death *plus*. The plus part being dependent on your particular sect of the religion.

To use your own example: if your god says "do not do X, doing X carries a penalty of Z" but also tells you to "do X or suffer a penalty of Z" then you've got a problem don't you?

Logged

Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Well thank you Skeptic 54768 for adding that insight. However, at no point have I talked about your god sinning against his own rules.I am questioning the nature of sin, in particular contradictory rules on the subject of sin. As a subset of the same conversation: whether all sin carries the same binary penalty. Is all sin the same, what's the penalty? Is telling a lie just as bad as getting a tattoo, just as bad as rejecting Jesus?

The standard penalty for sin is: death *plus*. The plus part being dependent on your particular sect of the religion.

To use your own example: if your god says "do not do X, doing X carries a penalty of Z" but also tells you to "do X or suffer a penalty of Z" then you've got a problem don't you?

The unforgivable sin is rejection of Jesus Christ, Our Lord.Everything else can be forgiven whether it be a killing spree or stealing a nickel from a register.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

I am starting this new post so that we can discuss how Christians understand the Bible to differentiate in a rational way why there is a difference between the sin of murder and God's command to the Israelites to annihilate certain Canaanite tribes.

This is explained by Paul in the NT:Ro:9:21: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?Ro:9:22: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:Ro:9:23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

It would appear that Yahweh made the Canaanites to be destroyed so that He could show how powerful he was. This theme was quoted by Christ earlier in the NT, when he explained, in John, that God had made a certain man blind that He might show his power.

If this is what gods do, then they get a pass.

Quote

MadBunny, first tell me where you see the Bible says murder is a sin and we'll go from there.

Madbunny, you are probably aware of this, but the Hebrew of the Bible uses three words for "kill". I'm sure gezusfreke will tell you what these words are and how and where they are used. You may also wish to refer to Nu:35:14: - Nu:35:34: in which murder is defined, as is the punishment and its rationale.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

For the non-believer, sin is non-existent. The idea of "sin" is really about the distribution of good to bad - which, as we can see through history, is purely subjective over times and cultures. If a commandment from the OT states "thou shall not kill", it can only be understood by people on a subjective spectrum, not as some objective absolute that is well defined. In modern western culture, self-defense is justifiable even if you end up killing another human. But the commandment is not clear at all in the matter - otherwise, an all powerful god would certainly make that very clear: "thou shall not kill, unless it is unavoidable in self-defense". If one determines that "kill" is actually "murder", then that implies some level of pre-meditation, which is illegal in most societies today - regardless of any religious terminology. In fact, if most bibles simply stated "thou shall not murder, nor be complicit in the murder of another person or persons", I would completely agree with that very sensible "commandment".

However, can you imagine a scenario where Jesus would use self-defense to kill someone? Neither can I. In fact, carrying a concealed weapon in order to "defend" ones self is probably the last thing Jesus would do. So, we have massive subjectivity and disagreement over the entire set of "laws, rules, commandments" from within the very ranks of YHWH/Jesus, and all of the supposed authorities of scripture over time. Humans are making it all up as we go.

One of the very first and most horrific abuses of YHWH in the Bible is when he explicitly murders everyone with a violent flood (according to the myth). To claim that the law-giver is free from guilt in this case is avoiding the very heart of the commandment. The commandment does not say "thou shall not kill, only I, YHWH, can do so". In what scenario is it ever OK for the lawmakers to break the laws with impunity? Perhaps in the case where the law-maker is also the creator? However, this is precisely why many people cannot accept any claim that the creator that behaves this way is a loving creator. There is simply no way to connect a loving creator, to one who is willing to kill all humans because it is not pleased with how its human creations are behaving.

As far as the tribes that YHWH commanded to have wiped out, there is no difference in the outcome. People who believe that YHWH is the creator, acted on his ruling and behalf, swinging their swords down upon the helpless bodies of infants, children, women, the elderly, and everyone else in that tribe that displeased YHWH. The humans carried out the killings, which were nothing short of pre-meditated murder - a direct violation of the commandment. Again, the commandment does not say "thous shall not kill, unless I command you to".

Modern Christians cannot defend this at all. There is simply no way to separate and distinguish the "will of some invisible creator that no one understands" to human ideas of morality and laws. The history of scripture being used and abused is nothing more than a river of blood. No amount of apologetics and special pleading will change this.

Any Christian today, when confronted, would be forced to admit that if YHWH commanded them to slaughter a baby, they would have no choice but to do so, yet those same Christians would also tell us that YHWH would never do such a thing, which is obviously wrong.

There are either 3 or 4 different moral standards for us to deal with. Depending on whether or not you want to separate the morals ascribed by Jesus from those of their god. But they are as follows:

1. God's moral standards. Which are irrelevant to us because he can do whatever he wants and he still loves us. He commands us to do one thing while seeing no reason why he himself should comply with any standards whatsoever. Wipe out the planet on a whim? Sure. Ignore the prayers of dying children? Hey, why not. Allow deadly tsunami's? What the heck. But despite his wayward ways, he is still the final arbiter of our behavior, and he's made it very clear what we can and cannot do.

Not.

2. God's written moral standards for humans: Though somewhat arbitrary and capricious (really specific on not lusting after your neighbors stuff, but silent on rape), at least he made a feeble effort to write a rule book. Luckily for theists, he also gave us all sorts of wiggle room.

3. I'll go ahead and count the things that Jesus said and did. Sadly, he was so busy being a nice guy he forgot to clarify a few things, hence even Christians can't all agree on some of the details. But that's okay, they all agree he was right, even though they don't all agree what he was right about. Did he, for instance, actually negate the old laws or not. Stuff like that.

4. Human moral standards, which are all over the place when compared to the above. And in many cases, are higher than any of the above. I, for instance, would never plot to drown everyone on the planet, even if I had the wherewithal. But I am otherwise a class-A sinner, if for no other reason than I don't honor the god I don't believe in.

But until someone can explain to me how Jesus can tell us to care for the poor but the Tea Party Republicans can choose to ignore them while venerating the whole religion business, I'm not likely to be impressed by the efforts of the religious to needlessly distort human problems of morality. By adding untrue adages and layers of unnecessary complexity, they are making it far harder than it need be to make the world a better place.

I'm guessing it is their effort to drown us all in bovine fecal material, since they don't know where to get enough water.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

He does not sound like a very nice god. WHY would you worship him if he stands for nothing but his own adoration?

If you have to ask, you are inadequately indoctrinated, Quesi.

If you dare not ask, you are a true believer.

I much prefer my own brand of ignorance, which is of stuff I haven't learned about yet, over Christian ignorance, which stems from stuff they dare not learn.

Sorry GZ, we're just filling time while you keep putting off actually saying things. Like in the last post, where you could have gone ahead and defined the differences as you see them, but chose not too because you seem to want to draw things out.

« Last Edit: January 01, 2014, 11:35:08 AM by ParkingPlaces »

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

MadBunny, here are the verses that Graybeard suggested. Please look these over and let's discuss any questions you have or anything that is not clear.

Numbers 359 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 10 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan, 11 then you shall select cities to be cities of refuge for you, that the mans layer who kills any person without intent may flee there. 12 The cities shall be for you a refuge from the avenger, that the manslayer may not die until he stands before the congregation for judgment. 13 And the cities that you give shall be your six cities of refuge. 14 You shall give three cities beyond the Jordan, and three cities in the land of Canaan, to be cities of refuge. 15 These six cities shall be for refuge for the people of Israel, and for the stranger and for the sojourner among them, that anyone who kills any person without intent may flee there.

16 “But if he struck him down with an iron object, so that he died, he is a murderer. The murderer shall be put to death. 17 And if he struck him down with a stone tool that could cause death, and he died, he is a murderer. The murderer shall be put to death. 18 Or if he struck him down with a wooden tool that could cause death, and he died, he is a murderer. The murderer shall be put to death. 19 The avenger of blood shall himself put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death. 20 And if he pushed him out of hatred or hurled something at him, lying in wait, so that he died, 21 or in enmity struck him down with his hand, so that he died, then he who struck the blow shall be put to death. He is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.

22 “But if he pushed him suddenly without enmity, or hurled anything on him without lying in wait 23 or used a stone that could cause death, and without seeing him dropped it on him, so that he died, though he was not his enemy and did not seek his harm, 24 then the congregation shall judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood, in accordance with these rules. 25 And the congregation shall rescue the manslayer from the hand of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge to which he had fled, and he shall live in it until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the holy oil. 26 But if the manslayer shall at any time go beyond the boundaries of his city of refuge to which he fled, 27 and the avenger of blood finds him outside the boundaries of his city of refuge, and the avenger of blood kills the manslayer, he shall not be guilty of blood. 28 For he must remain in his city of refuge until the death of the high priest, but after the death of the high priest the manslayer may return to the land of his possession. 29 And these things shall be for a statute and rule for you throughout your generations in all your dwelling places.

30 “If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the evidence of witnesses. But no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness. 31 Moreover, you shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death, but he shall be put to death. 32 And you shall accept no ransom for him who has fled to his city of refuge, that he may return to dwell in the land before the death of the high priest. 33 You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it. 34 You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell, for I the Lord dwell in the midst of the people of Israel.”

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

He does not sound like a very nice god. WHY would you worship him if he stands for nothing but his own adoration?

If you have to ask, you are inadequately indoctrinated, Quesi.

If you dare not ask, you are a true believer.

I much prefer my own brand of ignorance, which is of stuff I haven't learned about yet, over Christian ignorance, which stems from stuff they dare not learn.

Sorry GZ, we're just filling time while you keep putting off actually saying things. Like in the last post, where you could have gone ahead and defined the differences as you see them, but chose not too because you seem to want to draw things out.

If I want any crap out of you, I'll squeeze your head.

Why are you in such a hurry to get to the end? Why do you just want a Twitter response? Why not a meaningful conversation?

Your post #16 is not too helpful. I had rather hoped that you would throw out a few bones.

Let me add:

Thou Shalt not KillThe Old Testament was written in classical Hebrew. The Sixth Commandment in classical Hebrew is, "Tir-tsach Lo", which means, You shall kill Not. This is taken from the word Ratsach, which means, to intentionally kill unjustly or kill without just cause. Hebrew, like many languages, has different words that mean the same thing, with different contexts. For example:

Ratsach, meaning to intentionally kill unjustlyNakah, meaning to accidentally killSachat, meaning to kill for food or sacrificeMuth, meaning to executeHaarag meaning to smite with deadly intent: - destroy, out of hand, kill, murder (-er), put to [death], make [slaughter], slay (-er), [do this "surely".] Note the similarity to Ratsach.

It is, of course a little confusing as "genocide at the behest of a deity" is not really covered. However, we are fortunate to have the Supreme Court to help: apparently if you slay a few thousand people in a particularly gruesome way and cite the defence of "God told me to do it." You are either found to be completely mad or you are found guilty of first degree murder.

We also know that The Lord of Hosts commanded that pregnant women be ripped open and that he has apparently foretold that Edom's punishment will be so bad that to have your children dashed upon rocks is to be considered preferable. I think this is a war-crime, again, I would roughly equate to 1. Ratsach, meaning to intentionally kill unjustly.

What in the world are you trying to argue here gzuzfreke? Please explain in a little more detail for the rest of the members. And if my post above is completely off-topic, or derailing, I want to know why, exactly?

To use your own example: if your god says "do not do X, doing X carries a penalty of Z" but also tells you to "do X or suffer a penalty of Z" then you've got a problem don't you?

Do not do x, unless instructed otherwise? Doesn't god specify exactly when it's OK to, or when you should, or must, kill?

Anyway, I keep hearing that we are god's property, and in much the same way you can destroy your own property while you could take legal action against someone destroying your property, so can god do with us whatever he wants, but we can not do anything "unauthorized" to other people, not even to ourselves.

To use your own example: if your god says "do not do X, doing X carries a penalty of Z" but also tells you to "do X or suffer a penalty of Z" then you've got a problem don't you?

Do not do x, unless instructed otherwise? Doesn't god specify exactly when it's OK to, or when you should, or must, kill?

Anyway, I keep hearing that we are god's property, and in much the same way you can destroy your own property while you could take legal action against someone destroying your property, so can god do with us whatever he wants, but we can not do anything "unauthorized" to other people, not even to ourselves.

Your dogs are your property, but it's still illegal to force them to kill each other.

Logged

Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

MadBunny, here are the verses that Graybeard suggested. Please look these over and let's discuss any questions you have or anything that is not clear.

Numbers 35

<snipped bible stuff with numbers all over it>

Yes, lots of rules about killing and such. Summary: killing people on purpose = bad. Killing people accidentally = less bad.Since the rule per the bible is: don't kill people on purpose, should we then accept that killing people on purpose is a sin?

Please proceed gzusfreke. I believe you were going to tell me about why genocide isn't contradictory to this moral.

Logged

Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

MadBunny, here are the verses that Graybeard suggested. Please look these over and let's discuss any questions you have or anything that is not clear.

Numbers 35

<snipped bible stuff with numbers all over it>

Yes, lots of rules about killing and such. Summary: killing people on purpose = bad. Killing people accidentally = less bad.Since the rule per the bible is: don't kill people on purpose, should we then accept that killing people on purpose is a sin?

Please proceed gzusfreke. I believe you were going to tell me about why genocide isn't contradictory to this moral.

Just to make sure we are on the same page, I am only addressing God-commanded genocide as found in the Bible.

The conquest of Canaan must be understood for what it was. This event, rightly, is troubling to sensitive readers. We can’t ignore its horror, but some perspectives can help us evaluate it ethically.

• It was a limited event. The conquest narratives describe one particular period of Israel’s long history. Many of the other wars that occur in the OT narrative had no divine sanction, and some were clearly condemned as the actions of proud, greedy kings or military rivals. • We must allow for the exaggerated language of warfare. Israel, like other ancient Near East nations whose documents we possess, had a rhetoric of war that often exceeded reality. • It was an act of God’s justice and punishment on a morally degraded society. The conquest shouldn’t be portrayed as random genocide or ethnic cleansing. The wickedness of Canaanite society was anticipated (Gn 15:16) and described in moral and social terms (Lv 18:24; 20:23; Dt 9:5; 12:29–31). This interpretation is accepted in the NT (e.g., Heb 11:31 speaks of the Canaanites as “those who disobeyed,” implying awareness of choosing to persist in sin—as the Bible affirms of all human beings). There’s a huge moral difference between violence that’s arbitrary and violence inflicted within the moral framework of punishment (this is true in human society as much as in divine perspective). It doesn’t make it “nice,” but it changes the ethical evaluation significantly. • God threatened to do the same to Israel—and He did. In the conquest God used Israel as the agent of punishment on the Canaanites. God warned Israel that if they behaved like the Canaanites, He would treat them as His enemy in the same way and inflict the same punishment on them using other nations (Lv 26:17; Dt 28:25–68). In the course of Israel’s long history in OT times, God repeatedly did so, demonstrating His moral consistency in international justice. It wasn’t a matter of favoritism. If anything, Israel’s status as God’s chosen people, the OT argues, exposed them more to God’s judgment and historical punishment than the Canaanites who experienced the conquest. Those choosing to live as God’s enemies eventually face God’s judgment. • The conquest anticipated the final judgment. Like the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah and the flood, the story of Canaan’s conquest stands in Scripture as a prototypical narrative, or one that foreshadows what is to come. Scripture affirms that ultimately, in the final judgment, the wicked will face the awful reality of God’s wrath through exclusion, punishment, and destruction. Then God’s ethical justice will finally be vindicated. But at certain points in history, such as during the conquest period, God demonstrates the power of His judgment. Rahab’s story, set in the midst of the conquest narrative, also demonstrates the power of repentance, faith, and God’s willingness to spare His enemies when they choose to identify with God’s people. Rahab thus enters the NT hall of fame—and faith (Heb 11:31; Jms 2:25).

Just to make sure we are on the same page, I am only addressing God-commanded genocide as found in the Bible.

Are you trying to create a differentiation between killing what the bible deems 'bad' people vs what the bible deems 'good' people?Also, are you stating directly that the bible is using hyperbole rather than direct commands? [1]If so, please proceed.